Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 04 August 2010 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D1C3A67D1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mN8fwhJGz6-z for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail82.messagelabs.com (mail82.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197F53A6848 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1280931531!25379916!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
Received: (qmail 10408 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2010 14:18:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-6.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Aug 2010 14:18:52 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.14]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:18:51 +0100
From: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: ph@imatix.com, arman@noemax.com
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:18:51 +0100
Thread-Topic: [hybi] Adding multiplexing
Thread-Index: Acsz0CHZBtwCUESLQT6tNUkjymUNNgADuDLs
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A3730C2BF3200F@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <op.vgwojvnd64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local> <4C594A30.3000906@noemax.com>, <AANLkTina8zUbTr7ONw5V_=kA_BRndv9z_fPV_MHtCGUM@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTina8zUbTr7ONw5V_=kA_BRndv9z_fPV_MHtCGUM@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:18:24 -0000

Do firewalls and NATs handle SCTP properly?

While it would be nice to see HTTP become a layer in its own right, rather than only tied to TCP:
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn
http over SCTP is still pretty much experimental:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp
expired draft.

and only the Uni of Delaware gang care.

L.
________________________________________
From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pieter Hintjens [ph@imatix.com]
Sent: 04 August 2010 13:25
To: Arman Djusupov
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Adding multiplexing

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com> wrote:

> Multiplexing requires just a channelID per frame and control frames for flow
> control and sub-channel management.

It also needs (if you want to specify interoperable multiplexing)
rules for clean tear down of channels, handling per-channel errors,
handling connection level errors, etc.  We did all this in AMQP, and
it gets *complex*.

If you don't care about interoperability and just want space for
experimentation, define a binary frame consisting of length + channel
ID, specify that channel IDs are experimental, and that channel ID
zero is for control frames.  Then define all higher frames types
inside that frame.

But I'd ask: why are we not looking at SCTP[1] as the underlying
protocol rather than TCP?  We'd get all this for free and SCTP has
other significant advantages too, such as multihoming.  SCTP is pretty
easy to use, TCP calls map to it.  Running HTTP over SCTP would give
these advantages to old applications as well.

The point: while multiplexing may be beneficial to some scenarios, it
is probably flawed to try to use WebSockets to gain this.  There are
IETF protocols that already do this, they have been around for a long
time, they have been proven to work better.[2]

-Pieter

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
[2] http://www.cis.udel.edu/~leighton/
_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi